Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.

In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers § Articles currently being merged
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits § Articles currently being split

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - (Initiated 92 days ago on 21 October 2025)
Rescinded previous close, someone else should take a look at this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a parrelel/related RfC at Admin recall petition signature threshold & length that was initiated based on this close. CNC (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already did some counting and analysis in that followup RFC, I wrote my analysis up in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Some attempted analysis. Note I !voted in the check-in and my analysis there should not be taken as an attempt at a close; I just hope it might be helpful for whoever does decide to take it on. Anomie⚔ 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian, just letting you know about this incase you didn't see it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes Thanks for the ping! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mop this up if someone mops up the BLP coverage RFC above. -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland, I asked if there is any objection to a no-consensus close. I draw your attention to it so that any replies might inform your next steps. Dw31415 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, this RfC doesn't need a formal closure, especially now that we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall petition signature threshold and length. Some1 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 64 days ago on 18 November 2025)
Has been a month. CNC (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia. Please restore from the archive if you close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 November 2025)
RFC template expired. Please see Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#RfC_on_first_sentence for previous RFC on the same topic and note the existence of a moratorium discussion at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Moratorium_proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 November 2025)
This RfC could use a close by an experienced editor or admin. Some1 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 4 December 2025)
Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you far more involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else – there will always be another closer. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved.  :)—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 14 December 2025)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 19 December 2025)
One comment in past two weeks, has run it's course. CNC (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_25#College_cross_country_coaches_in_the_United_States
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 - most discussions there
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_7#Category:Winnipeg Fury
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_9#Category:Baltimore Skipjacks
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#1 article categories in Category:College men's track and field athletes in Alabama
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#College men's soccer coaches in Illinois small categories
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:College men's soccer players in Kansas
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 12#Category:Roosevelt Lakers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Drury Panthers women's swimmers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#CSU Pueblo ThunderWolves coaches
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 19#Coker University men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Brevard Tornados
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Category:Truman Falcons men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Cowley Tigers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Queens Royals
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Cincinatti State Surge men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#NDSCS Wildcats – closed by editor * Pppery *
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#ASA Miami Silver Storm
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Embry–Riddle Eagles men's soccer
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 25#Richland College Thunderducks men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 31#UC Merced Golden Bobcats
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 31#Illinois Fighting Illini men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 31#Elmira Eagles men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 31#Small college men's soccer players in Pennsylvania categories

Oldest (Initiated 56 days ago on 25 November 2025)
. These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 26 November 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Category:Colombian veterinarians
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 16#Category:Chinese veterinarians
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 16#Category:Algerian veterinarians

(Initiated 43 days ago on 9 December 2025)
Another messy fundamental debate over how to handle categories split over 3 discussions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 12 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 13 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - (Initiated 34 days ago on 17 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 19 days ago on 1 January 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 06:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 January 2026)
This appears fairly clear. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - (Initiated 68 days ago on 14 November 2025)
2 months without closure FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited for AfD. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

??? This is a formal merge proposal and it's already finished. FaviFake (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 4 December 2025)
—Opecuted (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized per WP:MERGE; tagged both pages appropriately. Hopefully that gets more discussion. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 December 2025)
Discussion stopped, 1 month since nom. FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 January 2026)
The discussion has stalled. FaviFake (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - (Initiated 18 days ago on 2 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - (Initiated 10 days ago on 11 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 04:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 148 days ago on 26 August 2025)
- Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. -- Beland (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested close of that RFC in the above section. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, the broader RFC closed as "no consensus", so this now needs a case-by-case close. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 November 2025)
- The question is whether this version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. A WP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 December 2025)
Request for close of Talk page discussion at Donald Trump currently titled as "Merge multiple subheadings for ANI listed close request for Bulking down the article".

Requesting an experienced administrator to close the Page Split discussion on the Trump Talk page which comes up on 30 days over the next day or two. For full disclosure, I'm a participating regular editor there and cannot do the close myself; and also, that Page Split discussion is a bit fragmented across 3-4 separate threads there since RedRose helped to convert it from its prior RfC format into the current Page Split discussion format. It needed to follow the correct reading of the limits of RfC rules. Possibly an experienced administrator could take a look with a mind to closing the discussion, since this multi-heading discussion has taken unexpected directions and turning points in several parts of the discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]